Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. 5226.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016, a good government transparency bill.

This bill is a simple concept, but I believe it will have an important and positive impact on the public's participation in the regulatory process. That positive impact will, in turn, benefit the regulatory process as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the public comment period is an essential part of upholding our democratic values. It ensures that Americans will have their voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.

H.R. 5226 helps preserve the integrity of the public commenting in two primary ways. First, the bill defines the parameters of how an agency should communicate when the agency is offering a proposal to the public and when asking that the public provide feedback. This bill requires agencies to do only what you should expect them to do, if the request for feedback was genuine and sincere.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5226 requires the agency to, one, identify itself; two, clearly state whether the agency is accepting public comments or considering alternatives; and, three, most importantly, speak about the regulation in a neutral, unbiased tone.

The people I represent in Michigan's Seventh District are ready to offer honest and thoughtful feedback, but they currently lack confidence that Federal agencies are actually open to their insights and constructive criticism.

There may be no better example of this tendency to ignore the American public than the EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule. The EPA not only overlooked the very real concerns of the countryside--concerns expressed by my constituents in Monroe, Jackson, and Lenawee County-- but the EPA actually engaged in a social media campaign to gin up support for their proposal.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA undertook a ``covert propaganda'' campaign by soliciting social media comments in support of their proposed rule. GAO also told the EPA to report this violation to the President and Congress because ``the agency's appropriations were not available for these prohibited purposes.''

The public comment period is the opportunity afforded to American people to voice their concerns on proposed rules, and agencies must take their input seriously.

Mr. Chairman, this bill simply tells agencies that they need to keep to the facts and avoid soliciting support when they ought to be soliciting comments.

Mr. Chairman, the second way this bill helps to preserve the integrity of the regulatory process is that it establishes transparency requirements for the agency in how it communicates to the public.

The bill requires agencies to post on their Web site some basic information about each communication the agency makes about pending regulatory action. For each communication, the public will be able to see a copy of the communication, the intended audience, the method of communication, and the date the communication was issued.

Additionally, agencies will be required to post online a description of each regulatory action, the date the agency first began to consider or develop each action, the status of each action, and the expected date of completion for each action.

Mr. Chairman, these basic transparency measures will allow the public to have a central source for all communication about a specific regulatory action so that the public can have a full and equal opportunity to understand the intent of the agency.

It will also allow Congress and the American public to verify that communications to the public about regulatory actions are honest, unbiased, and compliant with the requirements of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, although individuals may disagree about how much regulation is appropriate or how intrusive regulations might be, we should all agree that the public's participation is a vital part of legitimizing the rulemaking process. Without input from the public-- input that is fully considered by the agency promulgating the rule-- something fundamental is missing from the legislation itself.

Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again agencies that seem to believe that the regulatory process is simply a perfunctory act of compliance necessary to reach the end goal of whatever regulatory scheme the agency's staff feels is best.

What we see when the agency diminishes the public input is that the rulemaking process is used by agencies to advocate for what should be a proposed rule rather than used to refine and improve upon the agency's existing thoughts.

In fact, Congress originally established the regulatory process as a way to crowdsource the development of regulations long before the term ``crowdsourcing'' was even a thing.

Mr. Chairman, this bill helps us return to our original intent of crowdsourcing regulatory efforts, by preventing agencies from boasting to the public about how great their proposal is, instead of honestly and earnestly asking for feedback, constructive criticism, and a dialogue about how best to solve problems. As a result, H.R. 5226 will restore integrity to our regulatory process.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring the bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am awaiting additional Members who would like to speak to this issue, but, in the intervening time, let me just say again I certainly, having majored in forestry and land management early in my academic career, love pictures of nature. We are not attempting to stop that from taking place. We are simply saying that the American public deserves the opportunity, in regulatory issues, to make clear public comments and to know, with transparency, what agencies are doing.

To find out, with the new social media opportunities, that agencies like the EPA are using taxpayer dollars to purchase specific tools, electronic media tools, to engage in encouraging people only to comment positively about their rules, that is a great concern. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate for us to put a little further block in saying taxpayers ought to be considered and agencies ought to listen to them, and not the other way around.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend and colleague from Missouri. I appreciate his concerns, appreciate the list. But in that list, I didn't hear anyone that would have to live directly under the new regulations that are being proposed or people that would offer comment with great concerns of how it would impact them.

I am thinking of the agriculture community in my district, major community in the district, with great concerns about waters of the U.S. and the impact that it would have in doing away with the opportunity of the family farm, in many cases.

So I don't see any significant problems with any ambiguity, if there be any, which this legislation might produce amongst agencies because we are always open to agencies coming to Congress asking questions. What did we mean?

I think debates like this, that I appreciate, give an opportunity to look back and say this is what we debated, this is what we meant to do, and this is how you ought to carry it out. So the issue of any ambiguity that would come up from this legislation, in fact, I don't think it is a problem. It adds more insight.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), my good friend and colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, aware that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the concerns. I think we really want the same thing. We want to make sure that in the process of doing regulation rules, that they fit the need, but I guess I would add to the point that as limited as possible in order to keep the liberty, opportunity and growth in our country is what I would feel to be necessary.

We have regulatory agencies that are--because of their strength, their power, and their pervasiveness--able to direct the course of regulation under the guise of having public comment, under the guise of seeking that advice and even best practices; yet behind the scenes are using resources with some of the abilities they have today with social media and other things to lobby for a particular proposal before they have even looked at the comments from those that have to deal with it, whether it is a corporation or whether it is a farmer or whether it is a union.

As a former proud United Steel worker myself, I understand that regulations are important to make sure that protections are taken. But as a steelworker, I wanted to know that I had a job to come back to at a site to come back to. The place I worked at in the south side of Chicago is no longer there. Many of the reasons were because of bad decisions by the corporation, but also a regulatory climate that made it difficult to compete.

So all we are asking here is that there be full transparency, that Congress gets more involved in saying yes to good ideas from the agencies or saying no to bad ideas from the agencies, in listening to people and making sure that their concerns are met first and foremost. That is all I ask.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I ask support for H.R. 5226, I believe a commonsense and, yes, a bipartisan proposal to put transparency back into the system and integrity in the way we do our regulatory reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say from the outset, I certainly appreciate my good friend. I want to join, as I have all along, in support for my good friend and colleague from Flint in making sure that we do something about what has gone on there, the pain and suffering that they have gone through needlessly.

I am proud to say that I have been supportive and have traveled to Flint and have been supportive of the legislation we have moved from this House. We look forward when we hear possible good reports of optimism that something will be coming from the Senate, that we will do something further in dealing with that problem. I want to stand with my friend on that.

I think there are questions that have to be addressed relative to public health, but in this legislation, that goes way outside of what we are talking about. First of all, in committee, as well as in the Committee on Rules, this amendment wasn't offered. I think it wasn't because it didn't need to be.

Nothing in this legislation precludes an agency from communicating on these issues, whether it be lead poisoning in the water, Zika, or opioid abuse. Nothing precludes that from taking place. In fact, that is what we are encouraging, when agencies are promulgating a rule and a proposed rule has been put forward that they put forward the facts. That is all.

They have a power way beyond the general public to get information out, but, in turn, the general public ought to know that when they have an opportunity for public comment that agencies will honestly listen to what they are offering, and that the American public and American free enterprise system will be heard, and then the opportunity for Congress to interact as well with the bureaucratic agencies, and ultimately a rule will be promulgated and put in place that makes sense for all concerned, and people are protected.

That is what this bill does. It goes against agencies such as EPA. On the waters of the U.S., EPA and organizations should have been assisting Michigan and their environmental protection entities in dealing with issues of lead poisoning. Rather, on waters of the U.S., they were putting out releases, public statements through media, social media, saying: ``Choose clean water,'' ``clean water is important to me,'' ``I support EPA's efforts to protect my health, my family, and my community.'' Send that back in the rulemaking process. They were lobbying, and we have laws against that. This beefs that up and makes it very clear that the bureaucracy will listen to us to meet our needs, to make sure we are taken care of, and ultimately society works well.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and vote against it, vote it down.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source